surrogacy, Julie Bindel is right, it is human rights abuse

[antimatter]

www.byline.com/project/43/article/820
and
www.byline.com/project/43

I have to say I didn't realise that surrogate clinics existed to provide service to rich foreigners.
It is exploitation on many levels.

To put perspective on it, it does not cost a ivf clinic 10k in expenses to transfer an embryo, yet they are allowed to charge those amounts.

IVF clinics are profit-making companies.

They don't claim to be doing it for "altruistic" reasons.

So the bottom line is that you think that surrogates should carry a baby for someone else for free and end up in debt ourselves? Charming.

No making miracles I think it should be illegal to buy a baby. To use a surrogate should be illegal.

Bathtime I think what surrogacy in the UK is really missing to turn it into an industry is that there is no guarantee in law that the woman will have to hand the baby over.

I can't see why changing that law is in the interests of an altruistic surrogate at all.

I can see why it would be in the interests of someone who wished to do be a surrogate (or run agencies to arrange it) in order to make money as it would lead to a wider market for surrogacy.

It is illegal to buy a baby. Expenses are not buying a baby, expenses are their to ensure the surrogate does not end up out of pocket whilst helping a couple to fufill their dream of being parents.
I'm not sure I'm understanding why people are against that?
I appreciate a normal pregnancy does not cost thousands of pounds, but surrogacy journeys are not comparable, there are many many costs that you would not have in a normal pregnancy and it's only right the intended parents cover those costs, not the surrogate.

I can't see that surrogacy will ever be illegal, maybe abroad due to the exploitation, but not in the uk.

All the toast why do you not think the law change would benefit surrogates in the uk? And as for it being a wider market for surrogacy, I don't think that will be a bad thing, perhaps with legal framework intended parents won't look abroad for surrogacy anymore, that's got to be a good thing.

As for the person up thread who said something about competing with surrogates abroad, not the case at all, I just do not agree to the process abroad mainly because the women are exploited, secondly because the parents often have a hard time bring the baby home because of legal issues and thirdly because it is very much a business transaction, there is no friendship/relationship, it's merely a transaction. In the uk it is not like that at all.

I would like to see a breakdown of these £15,000 expenses for a pregnancy & birth, in a country where health services are free at the point of delivery.

Am I missing something? I had two babies in a country where health service is not free, and even then can't imagine what would cost so much in a pregnancy.

Having said that, personally I think surrogates should be paid for the service they provide, just like anyone else.

I just don't see how you can claim £15,000 is all expenses.

Why do you keep mentioning 15k, most surrogates do not get anything near 15k in expenses! It really is daily mail reader mentality!!

Yes you are missing something. Medical tests cost money, I'm an nhs patient but I still have to pay for health screening, sexual health checks, a enhanced Dbs etc for the purpose of surrogacy. Life insurance nearly a thousand pound over two years, a will was several hundred pounds. Dbs was 40 pounds, so that's £1000+ before any ttc takes place.
Theres ovulation tests, pregnancy tests, private scans, travel expenses, maternity clothes and bras, childcare expenses, loss of earnings surrogate and partner, the list is extensive.

I hand on heart can say I don't know any surrogates who have made money from surrogacy, I don't know many who have had holidays afterwards and I definitely don't know anyone who has been given a car!! Would love to know where you've read/heard such stories!?

Bathtime I think what surrogacy in the UK is really missing to turn it into an industry is that there is no guarantee in law that the woman will have to hand the baby over.

Yes. I think you are spot on.

We must change the legal relationship of a woman and her baby to create a more stable business environment for "altruistic" surrogacy.

I think it would be absolutely terrible for women's rights if the legal relationship changed and third parties had rights over the foetus and subsequent baby that trumped the mothers.

Why would it be so terrible? The baby is not the surrogates child.

I'm all for the uk changing the law to ensure parents have parental rights and responsibilities before the child is born, the pre birth orders in the USA seem to work really well and it takes away the fear and uncertainty that the surrogate might choose to keep the baby.

Why are you against it? Why do you feel a surrogate mother should have the right to change her mind and keep someone else's child?

I guess most women who have used a surrogate, have never carried a child to term, and thus have no idea how hard it is, physically and emotionally. Never mind having to give the baby away, and know you'll never see him or her again, or know if they're safe and happy. I agree it's exploitation, no matter how much you try to convince yourself it's not. The need for a rich Western woman to have a baby trumps everything, even the poor woman who is probably still dealing with having been pregnant and given birth, bleeding, dealing with hormones, trying to dry up her milk, and who may already be regretting what she's done. And she'll probably go through it all over again, because she needs the money so badly. Don't forget this is a country where woman still commit infanticide on a huge scale, because they can't afford to feed their babies (the alternative is watch them starve to death). Yet there are thousands of children in the UK being passed from foster home to foster home, because they're too old to be adopted now they're aren't little and cute any more. And I often wonder are any of these women coerced into it by husbands who see £££ and don't give a rats ass what impact it has on their wife. It is riddiculous to think that because the money is put in a trust to be used for mortgages, starting a buisness or childs education, the man doesn't benefit. If his wife is a surrogate 3 times, that's his home paid for, a business he probably has a legal claim too (even if he didn't have a claim on the money that funded it) and his sons given a good education. And he didn't have to do a damn thing except talk his wife into doing it.

Why do you feel a surrogate mother should have the right to change her mind and keep someone else's child?

I think all women should have the right to be considered the mother of a baby they are gestating.

I don't think genetic material trumps that.

I don't want pregnant women's rights to be eroded with the idea that the baby they are carrying could ever belong to someone else.

I'm all for the uk changing the law to ensure parents have parental rights and responsibilities before the child is born

Well I'm horrified by the idea of anyone having rights to or responsibility for a foetus that is still fully supported by a woman's body.

You want to legislate to make it easier to treat women as incubators.

I do not ever want women to be seen in law in that way.

When you think about it, these "dorms" are actually baby farms

Exactly and that's precisely the reason why the majority of uk surrogates condem surrogacy abroad.

Well it's something that could definitely be on the horizon, as I say we're were asked our opinions and we gave them, what the uk gov decides to do with our opinions is up to them, all I'm saying is the majority of us said we were in favour of it. I can't see the general public will be consulted although I may be wrong.

You can't see the general public being consulted on a fundamental legal change that will affect all women of childbearing age?

OK.

How will it affect all women of childbearing age?? It will only affect women who choose to carry a baby that's not theirs.

It what other circumstance would it apply to the general public?

How about any woman that uses an egg donor? Is she not the mother of her own baby then?

I know exactly what it's like to carry a child to full-term. I'm not insensible of the huge gift we were given by our surrogate and do often feel very humbled by her generosity and selflessness.

There is a danger in trying to protect women that you ignore what the women themselves are saying. Surrogates in the UK are saying that they want clarity in the law in order that there will be question of their being expected to have parental responsibility for the child they are carrying. Failing to understand why they would want this belies a total lack of understanding about the surrogate's frame of mind, and a lack of understanding about surrogacy in general. Although it seems difficult to imagine if you haven't been in the situation, it is the case that surrogates do not tend to want to keep the child. I have found that these are women who could easily have a child themselves if they wished to and consequently they have had all the children of their own that they want. Also, most surrogates are family focused and would want to have a child with their partner if they were to have another. Partners of surrogates certainly don't tend to extend their support to bringing up someone else's child; they usually have a youngish family of their own. I believe our surrogate when she says that she felt fond of our baby because he was the child of friends, but no connection as a parent. The bond simply wasn't there and if there were going to be problems, the psychological screening process picks that up.

A pregnancy requiring some time off work, or during which childcare was required, or taxis to and from workplace/school, mounts up quickly. Solicitors bills (not for the surrogacy contract because it cannot be legalised, but for wills and life insurances), psych screening and medical expenses (many of which are not covered by the NHS in surrogacy cases - think IVF treatment and expenses, scans, fertility checks) all mount up, and some of these may come from expenses.

After the birth, the expenses continue for a time as a the woman recovers. Loss of earnings can be a significant expense.

in order that there will be NO question

It's a fundamental shift in the concept of motherhood.

Indeed.

I also don't like the implication that because a woman can't carry, the only thing she should consider is adoption, would people say that to couples who can conceive, no they wouldn't so why is it ok to say that to infertile couples?

Very true making. Adoption is a bit of a calling. For the sake of the children involved, it's not something that every childless couple could handle or would be allowed to try.